Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

road.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 456 posts

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#371

Post by lxgr »

maest wrote: post #312
lxgr wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bike lanes on a curb are significantly more dangerous due to turning car drivers often not seeing them (due to parked cars in the way) or interpreting them as “just a sidewalk” and not properly looking for cyclists.

Not a real problem, as proven by many countries where cycling is encouraged and supported

The global consensus on which type is safer is not nearly as clear as you confidently make it out to be.

A lot of things need to be true for a curbside bike path to be safer than a roadside one, most importantly protection against dooring and ensuring visibility at intersections. If these measures are not taken, the result is often less safe.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#372

Post by amiga386 »

valicord wrote: post #284
iamcalledrob wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In UK highway terminology, you're "driving" in the bike lane if your vehicle enters it.

If that was the case they wouldn't need to forbid "parking" since it would not be possible to "park" without "driving" first. It's explicitly legal for cabs to drop off passengers cycle lanes in London https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/walking-and-cycling-changes-o...

Let's get this straight.

There are the general laws - the highway code. Transport for London has made special exceptions for black cabs (which are one kind of taxi), and for private hire vehicles (a different kind of taxi - this is what Uber, Lyft and Waymo are), in London.

The GP said "all drivers are allowed" - no, they are not. You're saying it's "legal for cabs" - yes it is.

- No cars can drive along a cycle lane.

- A normal car cannot enter, stop, wait or park in a cycle lane with an unbroken line, per the highway code.

- A normal car can enter a cycle lane with a broken line and may be able to stop, wait or park in it depending on the restrictions posted at the side of the road.

- Black cabs and PHVs in London can, and in fact have to pull over to the kerb to pick-up and drop-off, including into cycle lanes with an unbroken line. They can even do this on double-red lines, which mean "no stopping at any time" to everyone else. But they cannot do it for any longer than to pick-up and drop-off. They cannot wait or park there.

They can also pick-up and drop-off in some bus stops (which again, is an offence for normal cars). The main difference between black cabs and PHVs is that black cabs can drive in bus lanes, enter taxi ranks, and be hailed from the street, while PHVs can't.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-i...

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#374

Post by rsynnott »

tsss wrote: post #369
moomin wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People undoubtedly said this was not realistic in many car-clogged European cities before some actually did it. “Realism” here is just a measure of the current number of votes you have for making things better.

[flagged]

... Are you claiming that there are few or no European cities with extensive separated bike lanes or something?

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#375

Post by rsynnott »

cosmotic wrote: post #118
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities who want to keep cars out of bike lanes should stop offering “mom says we have bike lanes at home” repainting of streets. Create a curb and raise the bike lanes. It’s the only safe solution. I understand this is not realistic in a lot of scenarios but it is basically the only way you can achieve actual safety short of cement separators at the road level, which is basically a curb anyway. There’s just no realit…

I've seen people park in these curbed bike lanes too, completely blocking it off.

Clamping is a useful deterrent there.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#376

Post by devilbunny »

maest wrote: post #312
lxgr wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bike lanes on a curb are significantly more dangerous due to turning car drivers often not seeing them (due to parked cars in the way) or interpreting them as “just a sidewalk” and not properly looking for cyclists.

Not a real problem, as proven by many countries where cycling is encouraged and supported

It’s a real problem, just not an unsolvable one. But it will take a lot of awareness campaigns and time.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#377

Post by rsynnott »

zdragnar wrote: post #139
californical wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in sane countries the rules are attempted to be defined in a fair way, and you can follow them. Not perfectly of course, but with that goal. Like the Netherlands, it is (A) not possible to park in bike paths without going intentionally out of your way, and (B) there are reasonable alternatives, such as specific “loading zones” for passengers on nearly every block, on major roads. On minor neighborhood roads, you…

It's because the bike lanes are great PR but bad for votes, at least in the short term. City leaders love the greenwashing effect, but in the short term the percentage of people actually biking everywhere is very low, so it doesn't make sense for them to spend a ton of time and money to do it right. In a few years they'll get to put together a committee to discuss "learnings" and maybe they'll fix it if there are eno…

Slightly long-term thinking is required. Every year, the city I live in, Dublin, does a survey where people crossing the canals (rough proxy for entering/exiting the city centre) are counted for a day. Twenty years ago, 50% of crossings were by public transport, 37% by car, 2% by bike (most of the remainder was talking). In 2024 (the last year for which figures are available; for whatever reason publishing this data takes _ages_), 58% was by public transport, 25% by car, 6% by bike. Cycling's definitely on the rise, and congestion would be worse without it, but it does take time for people to change their habits.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#378

Post by gadhra »

tsss wrote: post #369
moomin wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People undoubtedly said this was not realistic in many car-clogged European cities before some actually did it. “Realism” here is just a measure of the current number of votes you have for making things better.

[flagged]

Copenhagen seems to have figured it out.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#379

Post by saagarjha »

nandomrumber wrote: post #358
saagarjha wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working on the road does not give you priority on the roads. If anything, if you’re making money off it, maybe you should be more mindful of the commons you’re using for your profession.

Didn’t your mumma teach you to share .

Didn’t yours teach you to put some more thought into how you engage with other people?

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#380

Post by rsynnott »

dangus wrote: post #309
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a band-aid to bad regional transit connectivity Maybe. American suburbs are already spread out. It doesn’t make sense to run subways to every corner the way we do in urban centers. Doing last mile with shared transport—versus cars which park idle for most of the day around train stations—makes sense.

Did I say we should run subways to every corner? Here’s a nice video about how small suburbs and even farms don’t need to involve deep car dependence: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg Meanwhile, Arlington, Texas has over 200,000 people with no bus system. And before you say “oh it’s Europe it’s old” I will point out that the Netherlands had a huge car dependency problem in the mid-century and deliberately move…

> For example, there’s zero reason why NJ transit should be a different agency than NYC’s transit authority. They should be the same agency that works toward a comprehensive regional transit system focused on the metropolitan area rather than arbitrary state borders.

This is something that I found pretty bizarre visiting the US. The transport is _so_ regionalised. San Francisco has a separate bus system to South San Francisco (which is as far as I can see just a suburb for practical purposes), for instance.

It doesn't generally make sense to split transport authorities strictly across administrative geographical lines, particularly where the administrative regions are small. For instance, London basically gets away with TFL occupying the same general geographic area as Greater London, but only because Greater London is _vast_. If you tried this with Dublin, it would never work, because the Dublin City administrative area is tiny (Dublin Bus operates in _seven_ local authorities, and its commuter rail lines all cross at least three).

Post reply on HN